128MB or 256MB Radeon?

I heard that you only see a significant performance increase in a
256MB Radeon card over a 128MB Radeon card when playing games at high
resolutions. On resolutions 1024X768 or lower, the performance is
virtually identical. I suppose the 256MB version would help on games
using obscenely high texture levels. But AFAIK, there are hardly any
games that take advantage of that... and even if they did, it would be
hard for a casual PC gamer to notice the "extra super quality
textures" without pausing the game, taking a screen shot, zoom in, and
using a magnifying glass.

Would these assumptions be correct?

Would an ATI Radeon 9800 Pro (128MB version) therefore give me a good
bang for the buck? I have no intention of ever playing games at any
resolution higher than 1024X768. The 256MB version would just be a
waste of money for me, then? I'm leaning towards the 128MB version,
unless someone tells me that 256MB video cards are going to be the
norm in the PC gaming industry within the next two years.

My usual theory is to just get the average memory size out because by the
time there are games that you would really appreciate the bigger memory size
you will be wanting to upgrade anyway. So take your money you are saving
and invest it. A game using 256 MB video memory is probably too
demanding on the rest of the system to make it very enjoyable anyway??


That's my 2 cents, I am sure others will argue different...perhaps we are at
the age of the 256mb card already and I just don't know it.







"Opticreep" wrote in message
om...
I heard that you only see a significant performance increase in a
256MB Radeon card over a 128MB Radeon card when playing games at high
resolutions. On resolutions 1024X768 or lower, the performance is
virtually identical. I suppose the 256MB version would help on games
using obscenely high texture levels. But AFAIK, there are hardly any
games that take advantage of that... and even if they did, it would be
hard for a casual PC gamer to notice the "extra super quality
textures" without pausing the game, taking a screen shot, zoom in, and
using a magnifying glass.

Would these assumptions be correct?

Would an ATI Radeon 9800 Pro (128MB version) therefore give me a good
bang for the buck? I have no intention of ever playing games at any
resolution higher than 1024X768. The 256MB version would just be a
waste of money for me, then? I'm leaning towards the 128MB version,
unless someone tells me that 256MB video cards are going to be the
norm in the PC gaming industry within the next two years.

Would an ATI Radeon 9800 Pro (128MB version) therefore give me a good
bang for the buck? I have no intention of ever playing games at any
resolution higher than 1024X768. The 256MB version would just be a
waste of money for me, then? I'm leaning towards the 128MB version,
unless someone tells me that 256MB video cards are going to be the
norm in the PC gaming industry within the next two years.

I've got an ATI 9800 Pro 128Mb running at stock speeds on a Barton3200 /
1Gig Dual channels system. I run Doom3 at high details, 4X AA, 1024x768. No
slowdowns at all, runs smoothly. I don't think 256Mb on the video card is
necessary for anything currently. When you look at 256Mb 9800 Pro's the
price goes up to the $300 range from $200 for the extra 128Mb. That's too
much for too little a gain.

"Opticreep" wrote in message
om...
I heard that you only see a significant performance increase in a
256MB Radeon card over a 128MB Radeon card when playing games at high
resolutions. On resolutions 1024X768 or lower, the performance is
virtually identical. I suppose the 256MB version would help on games
using obscenely high texture levels. But AFAIK, there are hardly any
games that take advantage of that... and even if they did, it would be
hard for a casual PC gamer to notice the "extra super quality
textures" without pausing the game, taking a screen shot, zoom in, and
using a magnifying glass.

Would these assumptions be correct?

Would an ATI Radeon 9800 Pro (128MB version) therefore give me a good
bang for the buck? I have no intention of ever playing games at any
resolution higher than 1024X768. The 256MB version would just be a
waste of money for me, then? I'm leaning towards the 128MB version,
unless someone tells me that 256MB video cards are going to be the
norm in the PC gaming industry within the next two years.


My feeling is that the 9800 Pro is the absolute minimum card that anyone
should consider having 256MB on. Anything less is probably a waste since
lesser cards would likely have difficulty keeping up speed-wise with any
game which utilizes more than 128MB. That said, I have a 128MB Radeon 9800
Pro and I've even had great success running Doom 3 in 1024x768 in High
Detail. If you don't plan to go above 1024x768, I wouldn't bother buying
the 256MB card.

Whoever said to you that 256MB video cards will be the norm in a couple of
years is correct (I think 512MB will be common too), but by then, much
faster and more capable cards will be out too. In 2006, a 9800 Pro will be
a low-end card regardless of how much memory it has. I certainly wouldn't
expect it to be very capable of being able to run games coming out in 2006
very well if such games say you should have a 256MB video card.

um, if the textures take up more than 128 megs of ram (like in DOOM3), it
doesnt matter what resolution you run at, the 256 meg card will out perform
the 128 meg card.

Opticreep wrote:
I heard that you only see a significant performance increase in a
256MB Radeon card over a 128MB Radeon card when playing games at high
resolutions. On resolutions 1024X768 or lower, the performance is
virtually identical. I suppose the 256MB version would help on games
using obscenely high texture levels. But AFAIK, there are hardly any
games that take advantage of that... and even if they did, it would be
hard for a casual PC gamer to notice the "extra super quality
textures" without pausing the game, taking a screen shot, zoom in, and
using a magnifying glass.

Would these assumptions be correct?

Would an ATI Radeon 9800 Pro (128MB version) therefore give me a good
bang for the buck? I have no intention of ever playing games at any
resolution higher than 1024X768. The 256MB version would just be a
waste of money for me, then? I'm leaning towards the 128MB version,
unless someone tells me that 256MB video cards are going to be the
norm in the PC gaming industry within the next two years.

To be honest get the 128MB card from NewEgg.
http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProduc...102-268&depa=0
Ya just can't beat the price $193.00 verses the 256MB card
http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProduc...102-340&depa=0
for $289.00. By the time games need the extra ram, you'll want to upgrade
to a better card with the new support all the goodie that have come out
since. And with PCI Express going main stream, you'll need a hole new mobo
along with a new video card when you upgrade.

"Opticreep" wrote in message
om...
I heard that you only see a significant performance increase in a
256MB Radeon card over a 128MB Radeon card when playing games at high
resolutions. On resolutions 1024X768 or lower, the performance is
virtually identical. I suppose the 256MB version would help on games
using obscenely high texture levels. But AFAIK, there are hardly any
games that take advantage of that... and even if they did, it would be
hard for a casual PC gamer to notice the "extra super quality
textures" without pausing the game, taking a screen shot, zoom in, and
using a magnifying glass.

Would these assumptions be correct?

Would an ATI Radeon 9800 Pro (128MB version) therefore give me a good
bang for the buck? I have no intention of ever playing games at any
resolution higher than 1024X768. The 256MB version would just be a
waste of money for me, then? I'm leaning towards the 128MB version,
unless someone tells me that 256MB video cards are going to be the
norm in the PC gaming industry within the next two years.